Tag Archives: alien abduction research

Not So Fast on the UFO Warm Fuzzies

by Guest Blogger,Ellen Tarr, Ph.D.

On Feb. 19, Motherboard posted an article by Daniel Oberhaus entitled, “This Neuroscientst Wants to Know Why People Who See UFOs Feel So Good.” The interview with Dr. Bob Davis discussed recent results of the FREE (Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial Encounters) study. Information about the study as well as results from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys can be found on the FREE website. The finding highlighted in the article and in their first paper is that of 3,057 people studied who have conscious memory of “contact with a physical craft associated with some form of non-human intelligence,” approximately 85% “are being transformed in a very positive behavioral or psychospiritual way.” This is an interesting finding, and even Davis points out that is wasn’t what was expected. However, there are a number of reasons these claims should be interpreted with caution and at least a little skepticism.

First, it is unclear from the information available how many people were really included in the study. Phase 1 and Phase 2 results show 2,658 and 1,792 respondents, respectively, although most questions were not answered by this many individuals. It is unclear how they arrived at the 3,057 people mentioned. The total from both phases would be 4,450, but it is likely some of the respondents participated in both phases. This could result in the lower number, but the section of the paper describing the methods does not include this information. It is standard practice when reporting survey results to report how many people answered the survey as well as how many surveys were used in the data analysis. It isn’t unusual to have exclusion criteria, but they need to be stated. The Appendix gives an N of 2,990, also with no explanation of how the number was obtained. To give benefit of the doubt, let’s assume for the remainder of this article that surveys from 3,057 unique respondents were analyzed in the study.

Second, the authors need to differentiate between the “study population” and the number of people responding to a given question when reporting their results. For example, 85% of the study population would be 2,598 individuals. This “major positive behavioral transformation” was represented by an answer of “strong increase” to items, including: concern with spiritual matters, desire to help others, compassion for others, appreciation of the ordinary things in life, ability to love others, concern for ecological matters, an understanding of “What is Life all about,” understanding of others, and conviction that there is life after death. I identified 28 items in the Phase 2 study that seemed to directly address these issues. These had an average “strong increase” response rate of 49%. Similarly, “strong decrease” responses to some questions was also evidence of a positive transformation: concern with material things, interest in organized religion, and fear of death. The average “strong decrease” to six items I identified was 42%. It is possible that different respondents answered “strong increase/decrease” for different items, such that 85% of individuals responded this way to at least one of the questions, but the provided data don’t address this. The average overall response rate for these questions was 77% of the 1,792 Phase 2 respondents, so even if all of them had answered “strong increase,” it would not be enough to be 85% of the study population (3,057 respondents).

In the paper that is available from the website, they specifically report state that, “Overall, 50.9% reported a ‘Highly Positive Effect’ and 21.7% reported a ‘Slightly Positive Effect’ on ‘changing their life’ directly from their UFO-NHI interaction. In contrast, only 4.3% reported a ‘Highly Negative Effect” and 6.7% a “Slightly Negative Effect’.” These appear to be the responses for Q415 of the Phase 2 survey, which had only a 74% response rate. Combining the two positive responses, the reader might think that 72.6% of the 3,057 respondents (2,219) reported a positive impact on their life when instead, it is 72.6% of 74% of 1,792 (Phase 2 respondents), which is 963 individuals. Q99 on the Phase 1 survey was similar, and approximately 64% gave a “positive effect” response; the overall response rate for the question was 48%, so this was only 31% of the Phase 1 respondents.

A third major issue is the lack of controlling which respondents answer follow-up questions. The results are supposed to be for people “who have reported to have had unidentified flying object (UFO) related contact experiences with non-human intelligence (NHI).” However, it isn’t clear that analyzed responses were only given by people who claim to have had this type of experience. Only 924 people claimed there was a craft or ship associated with the ET contact experience (Phase 2, Q41), and only 553 and 708 claimed to recall being on UFO in Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively (Phase 1, Q97; Phase 2, Q42). Only 1,275 claimed to have observed and NHI entity/ET (Phase 1, Q79), and 1,850 claimed to have seen an intelligently controlled craft in the sky or on the ground (Phase 1, Q14). There are numerous cases within the survey where more people responded to follow-up questions about a specific type of experience than had claimed to have had the experience. For example, 211 respondents reported having sex with an ET and 236 gave answers regarding what type of ET they had sex with. The likelihood that many items include responses from people who did not have the experience calls many results into question. Survey programs (such as SurveyMonkey used in the study) provide the ability to use skip logic to allow only those who respond a certain way to one question to see related questions. This problem could have been avoided if the authors had just taken the time to design the survey appropriately.

My fourth point relates to exclusion criteria. The methods section states that, “All subjects included in this study reported that they have never been diagnosed with a mental illness by a licensed mental health professionl [sic].” This is the only exclusion criterion mentioned, although there is no explanation of how many respondents were excluded for this reason. It seems unlikely that no one with a mental health diagnosis even tried to take the survey. While it is understandable to exclude those with mental health issues, it has direct implications for interpreting the results regarding positive impact of contact. Individuals who have had UFO/ET contact that has been very negative, even traumatic, may be more likely to have PTSD, anxiety (including a panic disorder), and/or depression. Excluding these individuals has a high probability of biasing the results toward individuals whose experiences were less negative/traumatic.

For my final point, I’m going to overlook the myriad problems with the survey itself and the analysis (much of it not discussed here), and accept for the moment that the “positive transformation” finding is valid. A positive transformation can, however, occur following a negative experience. One can imagine a renewed appreciation for life and what it has to offer following a serious accident or major illness. Should the accident or illness itself then be interpreted as a positive experience? I hesitate to advocate for that interpretation.

While it is tempting to conclude from these survey responses that contact experiences are overwhelmingly positive, negative experiences should not be ignored. As SNL points out, for every two people having these positive experiences, there is a Ms. Rafferty saying, “Yeah, a little different for me.”

Watching the news package in the above link about a divorce attorney who used hypnosis to sexually abuse female clients got me back to thinking about ufology’s own David Jacobs. Specifically, how he was caught on tape asking a female subject under hypnosis to send him her soiled panties and not remember she had done so. And at another time, offered to buy her a chastity belt with nails at the vaginal opening he found at a sex shop he frequented, to keep away rapey alien/human hybrids. He had convinced her such beings existed in her life through numerous hypnotic sessions conducted after telling her all about them from other subjects he had put under.

When Jeff Ritzmann and I exposed this those many years ago, there was a lot of resistance from within the ufological community. Friends stuck by him, of course, and some podcasting and radio people. UFO conventions hosted him. MUFON gave him a lifetime achievement award. It was an embarrassing wakeup call the likes of which might completely fall on deaf ears today, when we’ve got a president-elect who was caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy and getting away with it because he’s famous.

From sexism to sycophants to friendship to preservation of a cottage industry that ran on many of the memes culled from alien abduction hypnosis–there was no shortage of reasons for people to turn a blind eye to Jacobs’ unethical behavior. But there was one excuse given–that even Jacobs trumped up a bit–that bothered me in that I couldn’t figure out if it was true or not. It was the notion that a subject under hypnosis is still in control because they are self-aware. If true, then she is allowing this to happen. It’s her dirty secret. This is how people give themselves permission to act out repressions that are taboo.

She wanted it. That old rapey chestnut. And the answer hadn’t come to me until watching the above video package. The answer is this: self-awareness and self-control are two different things. They are so intertwined that it’s easy to forget they can be pulled apart.

Ever take a psychedelic? Scream all you want from the back of your mind–you ain’t snapping out of it on command. Ever have a lucid dream where you think you have full control because you’re aware you are asleep, then find out you don’t? Ever struggle with sleep paralysis where you cannot even in waking consciousness will your own body to move? There are certain spiritual experiences where this is the case as well, such as talking in tongues, spontaneous movements–go down the list. You’re there and not in control. Why would we assume it is otherwise with hypnosis?

Clearly the police officers in that video did not assume it. And neither did the judge. Heck, even the man accused admitted to what he was doing. He didn’t blame the victims because he knew there were several and he wasn’t one of them.

Now apply this to other forms of mesmerism. Like television and dictatorial speeches. Sporting events. Mob mentality. Think how controllable we all are in masses if not individually. Some people most certainly let go their repression and act out in the right circumstances. But most? Not most. To say most is to ignore all of the hard work and dedication our own intelligence community has put into fostering hypnosis as a means of controlling people. (I say with a nod to the work of Jack Brewer.)

We have not and will likely not get legal justice in Ufology Land for all the damage done by numerous amateur hypnotists. What we are left with is ourselves and our responses to unethical behavior. It’s never too late to give up the sacred cows and change our minds with the facts. I’d argue that our response is our responsibility. In this, we are in full control.

“Just the fact that the first sentence is ‘In 1994 I worked with Allison, whose hybrids were forcing her into sexual services’ should disqualify him from having any tangible connection to reality or common sense.”

Above is the link to a page David Jacobs put out to answer some of the charges made by Emma Woods. It’s so thoroughly, awesomely a train wreck that I have no interest in picking it apart for fear that David or his lackey might read the critique and change it accordingly. Then again, he is such an obvious narcissist, probably not an issue.

I know many of you are going to ask me what I think of the site. My answer is, what do you think of it? We’re all reading the same thing, right?

Put it this way: OJ Simpson wrote a book called If I Did It. David Jacobs just released a website that might as well be called, I Did It.

If you want a proper and concise couple of critiques, check out what Jeff Ritzmann has to say here:

“It is unethical and cowardly to hide in fear behind a research subject. It is gut-wrenching to recognize his callous indifference to Emma’s situation as he ponders using a chastity belt to anger the abductors. It is appalling to hear him act like some sort of therapist implanting hypnotic suggestions, not for his patient’s benefit, but to serve HIS needs. It is astonishing that he would basically confirm he contaminated subject testimony because a central tenet of his book is that we should believe what he tells us because it was independently arising information.

“So tell me–because I have trouble with this part–which aspect of any of this is consistent with the activity of only taking oral histories, the defense he used to escape Emma’s charges to Temple University? David Jacobs has been caught in his own web of lies.”

——————————-

Again, use your own common sense here. All David Jacobs has done is released longer versions of the hypnosis sessions Jeff and I thoroughly deconstructed years ago, as if to say, “See? I’m exonerated because I’m releasing these this time.”

That’s what delusional narcissists do.

It’s all out there now. And I’m sure Emma Woods will have her say and correct whatever lies and omissions she sees in Jacobs’ site. But really, it doesn’t matter. It’s nit picking and frankly, although Emma is the reason for this and the person he’s trying to keep the focus on, she’s no longer the center of it. To expand on one of Tyler’s points, you have a man in David Jacobs who goes on show after show, writes book after book, claiming that he does not contaminate his subjects with knowledge about hybrids/hubrids/aliens/or each other. And by his own transcripts we see and hear him doing the exact opposite. He is literally creating this Dungeons & Dragons story by blab-blab-blabbing to his subjects about each other and his fears and these hybrids… and then putting them under hypnosis and–like magic–retrieving the scripts of the stories he just told.

Again, he thinks this is his defense. He’s. Not. All. There. Folks. He wants to make this about Emma, “diagnose” her with mental illness, and claim she took him out of context. You would have to be mentally deranged to buy it, defend it, and not want to get him help.

So again, here it all is for everyone to see. Five years later. Now, are you, the audience, going to put up with this? Even if ufology is just entertainment to you, do you let it go because “hubrids” makes you giggle? Remember that for every laugh you have at David Jacobs’ whacky theories there is quite possibly a human being whose mind he has altered through hypnosis to believe that whacky theory. According to him, there are people who believe they are being attacked and manipulated by hubrids. If so, it is because–by his own demonstration–they now have false memories of this courtesy of the man to whom they turned for help.

It’s not fun and games. Perhaps it’s a crime, we may never know. Certainly, it’s unethical and needs to be stopped.